It's tempting to say "Steve Jobs would have done this," or "Steve Jobs would not have done that" because he was a familiar figure and we do have a good idea of his sensibilities. But that's a lazy rhetorical device, and it's devoid of real meaning. If it did have any authority you wouldn't see, for example, people arguing both sides of an issue—like whether or not he would have approved of the new iPad.

Apple hasn't been the same either. And, wherever he is, Jobs probably doesn't like some of the things that have been happening or are about to happen in Cupertino. Here are the 10 things that would have probably made him shout his classic "this is shit!"

The list goes on. Gizmodo's writers worship at the altar of a constantly rotating list of "top stories" and they'll do and say anything to see one of their stories crack that list.

Which means they have no problem being (almost always) sensational, (often) wrong, (usually) hypocritical, and (at worst) dickheads -- all in the name of exposure.

So, this…

We don't know what Apple's next products are going to be. No one does, aside from a handful of folks in Cupertino and maybe a Foxconn exec or two. But let's assume for a moment that there's a grain of truth to the two most prevalent rumors that have been swirling the last few months: a smaller iPad, and a stretched out iPhone.

Jobs very publicly hated both of these things. Seven-inch tablets? Please. Jobs said as early as October 2010 that they're worthless "unless your tablet also includes sandpaper, so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one quarter of their present size." He didn't have much nicer to say about phones that weren't 3.5-inches.

…is utter nonsense. It's the sort of thing someone might say if they don't know anything at all about Steve Jobs or his history of shitting on products one day and then embracing them the next.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Jobs's personality.

Beyond actual examples of that happening in Apple's product line, Walter Isaacson's biography is replete with stories about Steve Jobs changing his mind from day to day, let alone year to year.

Tim Cook needn't worry about what changes he makes -- he needs to be concerned with why he makes those changes.

Of course, if you listened to Tim Cook at the All Things D conference, you know (as Gizmodo doesn't seem to know) that he has a pretty good finger on the pulse of what made Apple great after Steve Jobs returned.

Another example:

Seriously, think about it. What would you do to the iPad or iPhone that hasn't been done already? Slightly faster processor, sure. Make them waterproof and shatterproof, okay. But those incremental improvements aren't worth the biannual dog and pony shows that have made Apple's reputation. For that, you need a wow. And as we learned when the new iPad came out,a spec bump just doesn't cut it.

Gizmodo is really bad about this -- most blogs are -- but what they've done here is to make an assertion ("as we learned when the new iPad came out, a spec bump just doesn't cut it") and then in support of that, link off to one of their own articles positing an opinion about the mediocrity of the new iPad.

You know, instead of, oh I don't know, linking off to the new iPad's record-setting sales numbers, or Apple's quarterly reports, or something (anything) that might tell an objective truth about how it was received by the general public.

Gizmodo didn't like it -- Gizmodo also wasn't invited to try one out before it was released, but I'm sure they'd never let that get in the way of their high standards of professionalism -- so it must not cut it, right?